Follow Kurt Melvin on Twitter

Subject: "Google's Post-Farmer Content Guidelines and My Comments"   Previous Topic | Next Topic
Printer-friendly copy    
Conferences The New MadBomber Marketing and SEO Forum Topic #668
Reading page 1 of 1 pages
Kurtadmin click here to view user rating
Member since Dec-5-02
8892 posts, 5 feedbacks, 8 points
May-13-11, 10:05 AM (PST)
Click to EMail Kurt Click to send private message to Kurt Click to view user profileClick to add this user to your buddy list  
"Google's Post-Farmer Content Guidelines and My Comments"
Here's the list of the recent post-farmer suggestions concerning content from Google...Google's remarks on in bold, followed by my own comments.

If you have any comments or ideas of your own, please add them below.

•Would you trust the information presented in this article?

How would Google detect/rank this?

•Is this article written by an expert or enthusiast who knows the topic well, or is it more shallow in nature?

I'm guessing this would maybe suggest to use an author name for different niches, then get articles by that pen name posted in different places.

•Does the site have duplicate, overlapping, or redundant articles on the same or similar topics with slightly different keyword variations?

Make sure to put similar content on separate domains...Even better, totally separate servers.

•Would you be comfortable giving your credit card information to this site?

How would Google detect/rank this? Maybe use Google Checkout or Paypal?

I proposed the "You Rank" a while back where Google uses data it collects about YOU and applies it to your sites. They couldn't possibly using some type of credit reporting for this, could they? I doubt it, but...

•Does this article have spelling, stylistic, or factual errors?

The spelling is easy enough to check...I wonder how they check facts? Do they compare facts on a page with other pages? Would adding a lot of correct facts to content help in rankings?

•Are the topics driven by genuine interests of readers of the site, or does the site generate content by attempting to guess what might rank well in search engines?

I find this one very interesting, especially the use of the word "guess". Google seems to be saying that they frown on keyword research and generating content based on this research.

But why the word "guess"? As a poker player trying to read another player's hand, I find their choice of words very interesting. Who "guesses" what to write about?

My two "reads" are:

- Google doesn't like people doing keyword research and the writer subconsciously used the word "guess" as a putdown. We do need to realize it was probably a single writer and not necessarily how Google feels.

- This writer knows something we don't and considers keyword research as "guesswork" because the numbers are invalid.

I'm probably wrong and it's probably something else (or maybe nothing), but until I have more info or come up with a better idea, this is what I'm going with...But I still find the use of the word "guess" interesting.

If I'm correct that Google doesn't like keyword research, my guess is that old-fashioned SEO may be on the way out, at least to some degree.

For example, it may be better to not have "perfect" SEO concerning page titles. Traditional wisdom has suggested something like this:
<title>Dog Training: Discover the best dog training tips</title>

This strategy is pretty common advice with some SEOers, use the keyword phrase twice, early and late. Other suggest only using the keyword once, but use only the keyword phrase and nothing else:
<title>Dog Training</title>

Both of these are valid, but they also both scream "keyword! keyword!"...

Again if it's true about Google not liking keyword research, the best way to detect this would be through the use of keywords in the obvious ways and places.

I suggest that we vary keyword densities, proximity, prominence and secondary keywords. The good news is, this is exactly how Bombers have learned to use keywords since 2002.

I don't recommend you stop using the old principles, just adding more variety to your mix. I have a feeling Farmer was just the beginning and a variety of strategies is best in unstable times.

•Does the article provide original content or information, original reporting, original research, or original analysis?

Notice it says "original" and not "unique". And I'm analyzing Google inso, so let's see how well I rank.

•Does the page provide substantial value when compared to other pages in search results?

Again, how would an algo detect this, unless it uses human behavior as discussed in PeopleRank, including using real human reviewers as well as tracking user movements?

•How much quality control is done on content?

Isn't this the same as "•Does this article have spelling, stylistic, or factual errors?"???

•Does the article describe both sides of a story?

Use the phrase "on the other hand" alot?

•Is the site a recognized authority on its topic?

This is probably best done through links and citations. It's also possible that being included in off-line publications like magazines and book, as well as TV, may be an asset.

Would publishing a book on Amazon have any affect on being a "recognized authority"?

•Is the content mass-produced by or outsourced to a large number of creators, or spread across a large network of sites, so that individual pages or sites don’t get as much attention or care?

Here we go...Since man of the methods here are about mass-producing content, we need to pay attention. When combining spinning and bombing chunks, you need to do a good job, as well as be careful not to put too many similar pages on the same server. I'd also be on the lookout concerning linking sites using the same chunks or spun content together. I'm not saying don't do it, just be prepared that this is something that may be a problem in the future.

Concerning "attention or care", this is where a program like ZZ Tuel or especially Hubz can be of great help...Using Hubz slowly can make your sites look like they are being updated and "tended to"...

"Outsourced" and "number of creators"...This seems to be directed at sites like EZA and, etc. But what about forums?

•Was the article edited well, or does it appear sloppy or hastily produced?

Isn't this the same as "•Does this article have spelling, stylistic, or factual errors?"???

•For a health related query, would you trust information from this site?

Again, how could they tell this if they didn't ask a health expert?

•Would you recognize this site as an authoritative source when mentioned by name?

Name recognition? I've always felt Google sometimes prefers big companies and fame over substance...Maybe social sites like Twitter and Facebook could affect this...We know Google loves Twitter.

•Does this article provide a complete or comprehensive description of the topic?

What is "comprehensive"? I doubt this is actually in the algo, as how could it be calculated? It' possible they have a way, but I can't think of it...My suggestion is to make pages longer...Is Google going to take the file size of the content and compare it to the others to see which is bigger (more comprehensive)?

•Does this article contain insightful analysis or interesting information that is beyond obvious?

Actually, this is my complaint with PLR and writers for hire.

•Is this the sort of page you’d want to bookmark, share with a friend, or recommend?

I've written of the possibilities of bookmarking/favorites in the BROWSER. Sites that are accessed through favorites or personal bookmarks are probably well liked.

As far as "sharing", this hints of Social Sites, like Twitter and Facebook. I believe that social sites could be a major part of SEO in today's World.

People talk a lot about looking "natural" and they will bring up that if someone is on Oprah that they could get tons of links overnight, as if this would be "natural". To a point it may be, but if someone was on Oprah yesterday and got tons of links, wouldn't it also be mentioned on Twitter and Facebook and other social media? How hot can your new article on "Welders who love to knit", which got 100,000 links in a week, but not one person Tweeted about it?

•Does this article have an excessive amount of ads that distract from or interfere with the main content?

As discussed with Bombers often, don't even put ads on your pages until you are getting good traffic, and only put ads on the top 20% (or so) of your sites...Think of the 80/20 rule.

•Would you expect to see this article in a printed magazine, encyclopedia or book?

C'mon man! Seriously?

•Are the articles short, unsubstantial, or otherwise lacking in helpful specifics?

Isn't this the same as "Does this article provide a complete or comprehensive description of the topic?

•Are the pages produced with great care and attention to detail vs. less attention to detail?

Isn't this the same as "•Does this article have spelling, stylistic, or factual errors?"???

•Would users complain when they see pages from this site?

What would cause people to complain? Slow load speed, pop ups and unders, too many ads, adult content and pics, hate, curse words, bad layout problems...more...

My final thoughts...As poker players, we should always be on the lookout for bluffs and semi-bluffs. It's quite possible that Google doesn't have a clue about how to deal with one or more of these points and is just "bluffing". Of course they want us to provide the best content we can so they can use it to make 100s of billions of dollars.

However, bluff or not, we should assume this is what Google wants and is trying to do, it's up to us to do better than our competition.

-Boom boom boom boom.

  Alert | IP Printer-friendly page | Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote

Conferences | Topics | Previous Topic | Next Topic